比较 ECIRS 和 MPCNL 治疗复杂性肾结石的疗效和安全性:一项关于疗效和安全性的回顾性单中心研究。

IF 0.6 4区 医学 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Tuo Zhou, Xinsheng Zhu
{"title":"比较 ECIRS 和 MPCNL 治疗复杂性肾结石的疗效和安全性:一项关于疗效和安全性的回顾性单中心研究。","authors":"Tuo Zhou, Xinsheng Zhu","doi":"10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20247704.57","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Kidney stones, a common urinary system ailment, often necessitate surgical intervention. Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery (ECIRS) and multi-channel percutaneous nephron lithotripsy (MPCNL) are key modalities for treating complex renal stones, prompting the need for a comparative analysis to enhance clinical decision-making.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients undergoing surgical treatment for complex kidney stones from April 2018 to April 2022 were divided into the control (MPCNL) and observation (ECIRS) groups. Propensity score matching was used to balance baseline data, and <i>t</i>-tests and chi-square tests were employed to compare the perioperative indicators between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 210 patients were enrolled in this study for pre-observational comparison, and they were divided into the control group (110 patients) and observation group (100 patients). Following matching, each group comprised 85 patients. Pre-observational comparison revealed significant differences between the groups in age, disease duration, and stone diameter (<i>p</i> < 0.05). However, after matching, baseline data comparison showed no statistically significant differences (<i>p</i> > 0.05). Surgery-related parameters, including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative activity duration and hospital stay, did not significantly differ between the groups (<i>p</i> > 0.05). The observation group exhibited a significantly higher stone retention-free rate after initial treatment compared with the control group (<i>p</i> < 0.05), although overall stone clearance rates did not significantly differ between the groups (<i>p</i> > 0.05). We found no significant differences in perioperative complications between the two groups (<i>p</i> > 0.05). Moreover, the observation group experienced significantly lower postoperative pain levels at 6, 24 and 48 h compared with the control group (<i>p</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Conclusively, ECIRS and MPCNL are viable options for treating complex renal calculi, with similar operation times, complication rates and stone clearance rates. ECIRS may offer advantages including lower postoperative pain and higher initial stone clearance rates than MPCNL. However, large-scale studies with long follow-up times are needed for validation.</p>","PeriodicalId":48852,"journal":{"name":"Archivos Espanoles De Urologia","volume":"77 4","pages":"418-425"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing ECIRS with MPCNL for Complex Renal Calculi: A Retrospective Single-Centre Study on Efficacy and Safety.\",\"authors\":\"Tuo Zhou, Xinsheng Zhu\",\"doi\":\"10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20247704.57\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Kidney stones, a common urinary system ailment, often necessitate surgical intervention. Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery (ECIRS) and multi-channel percutaneous nephron lithotripsy (MPCNL) are key modalities for treating complex renal stones, prompting the need for a comparative analysis to enhance clinical decision-making.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients undergoing surgical treatment for complex kidney stones from April 2018 to April 2022 were divided into the control (MPCNL) and observation (ECIRS) groups. Propensity score matching was used to balance baseline data, and <i>t</i>-tests and chi-square tests were employed to compare the perioperative indicators between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 210 patients were enrolled in this study for pre-observational comparison, and they were divided into the control group (110 patients) and observation group (100 patients). Following matching, each group comprised 85 patients. Pre-observational comparison revealed significant differences between the groups in age, disease duration, and stone diameter (<i>p</i> < 0.05). However, after matching, baseline data comparison showed no statistically significant differences (<i>p</i> > 0.05). Surgery-related parameters, including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative activity duration and hospital stay, did not significantly differ between the groups (<i>p</i> > 0.05). The observation group exhibited a significantly higher stone retention-free rate after initial treatment compared with the control group (<i>p</i> < 0.05), although overall stone clearance rates did not significantly differ between the groups (<i>p</i> > 0.05). We found no significant differences in perioperative complications between the two groups (<i>p</i> > 0.05). Moreover, the observation group experienced significantly lower postoperative pain levels at 6, 24 and 48 h compared with the control group (<i>p</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Conclusively, ECIRS and MPCNL are viable options for treating complex renal calculi, with similar operation times, complication rates and stone clearance rates. ECIRS may offer advantages including lower postoperative pain and higher initial stone clearance rates than MPCNL. However, large-scale studies with long follow-up times are needed for validation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48852,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archivos Espanoles De Urologia\",\"volume\":\"77 4\",\"pages\":\"418-425\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archivos Espanoles De Urologia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20247704.57\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archivos Espanoles De Urologia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20247704.57","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:肾结石是一种常见的泌尿系统疾病,通常需要手术治疗。内镜联合肾内手术(ECIRS)和多通道经皮肾镜碎石术(MPCNL)是治疗复杂性肾结石的主要方式,因此需要进行对比分析,以加强临床决策:将2018年4月至2022年4月接受复杂肾结石手术治疗的患者分为对照组(MPCNL)和观察组(ECIRS)。采用倾向评分匹配法平衡基线数据,采用t检验和卡方检验比较两组围手术期指标:本研究共纳入 210 名患者进行观察前比较,并将其分为对照组(110 名)和观察组(100 名)。配对后,每组各有 85 名患者。观察前比较显示,两组患者在年龄、病程和结石直径方面存在显著差异(P < 0.05)。但在配对后,基线数据对比显示差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。手术相关参数,包括手术时间、术中失血量、术后活动时间和住院时间,两组间无显著差异(P > 0.05)。与对照组相比,观察组在初始治疗后的无结石保留率明显更高(P < 0.05),但两组间的结石清除率无明显差异(P > 0.05)。我们发现两组在围手术期并发症方面无明显差异(P > 0.05)。此外,与对照组相比,观察组在术后 6、24 和 48 h 的疼痛程度明显降低(p < 0.001):结论:ECIRS 和 MPCNL 是治疗复杂肾结石的可行方案,手术时间、并发症发生率和结石清除率相似。与 MPCNL 相比,ECIRS 可能具有术后疼痛较轻、初始结石清除率较高等优势。不过,还需要进行长期随访的大规模研究来验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing ECIRS with MPCNL for Complex Renal Calculi: A Retrospective Single-Centre Study on Efficacy and Safety.

Background: Kidney stones, a common urinary system ailment, often necessitate surgical intervention. Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery (ECIRS) and multi-channel percutaneous nephron lithotripsy (MPCNL) are key modalities for treating complex renal stones, prompting the need for a comparative analysis to enhance clinical decision-making.

Methods: Patients undergoing surgical treatment for complex kidney stones from April 2018 to April 2022 were divided into the control (MPCNL) and observation (ECIRS) groups. Propensity score matching was used to balance baseline data, and t-tests and chi-square tests were employed to compare the perioperative indicators between the two groups.

Results: A total of 210 patients were enrolled in this study for pre-observational comparison, and they were divided into the control group (110 patients) and observation group (100 patients). Following matching, each group comprised 85 patients. Pre-observational comparison revealed significant differences between the groups in age, disease duration, and stone diameter (p < 0.05). However, after matching, baseline data comparison showed no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05). Surgery-related parameters, including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative activity duration and hospital stay, did not significantly differ between the groups (p > 0.05). The observation group exhibited a significantly higher stone retention-free rate after initial treatment compared with the control group (p < 0.05), although overall stone clearance rates did not significantly differ between the groups (p > 0.05). We found no significant differences in perioperative complications between the two groups (p > 0.05). Moreover, the observation group experienced significantly lower postoperative pain levels at 6, 24 and 48 h compared with the control group (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Conclusively, ECIRS and MPCNL are viable options for treating complex renal calculi, with similar operation times, complication rates and stone clearance rates. ECIRS may offer advantages including lower postoperative pain and higher initial stone clearance rates than MPCNL. However, large-scale studies with long follow-up times are needed for validation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Archivos Espanoles De Urologia
Archivos Espanoles De Urologia UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
111
期刊介绍: Archivos Españoles de Urología published since 1944, is an international peer review, susbscription Journal on Urology with original and review articles on different subjets in Urology: oncology, endourology, laparoscopic, andrology, lithiasis, pediatrics , urodynamics,... Case Report are also admitted.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信